WHAT RULES THE RULE OF LAW?

The Right Report ^ | March 11, 2004 | Patrick Rooney

[daviddennis]

But gay marriage is people asking to be married, which would seem like implicit support of marriage as an institution and a confirmation of its desirability as a state.

It's not saying "Marriage is bad and we hate it". It's saying "We want to join the club".

I could understand very well why people would hate someone who said marraige was a bad thing or preached against it. They would be attacking marriage.

Why is gay marriage an attack on marriage?

D

[StriperSniper]

more special interest propaganda inserted into the curriculum.

On this morning's Washington Journal, there was a Stamford education professor who went on a talking points sounding diatribe about 'No Child Left Behind' for crowding subjects like history and science out. What doesn't the brainiac understand about a kid not knowing basic reading keeping him/her from ever learning anything else?

[NathanR]

It's not saying "Marriage is bad and we hate it". It's saying "We want to join the club".

Of course. However, when they "join" the club, the club will be changed forever.

The damage will occur, when "straights" decide that the "club" is not worth joining. That will occur, probably in 5 to 10 years from now. (If not sooner.)

[daviddennis]

Why would it not be worth joining?

The benefits are still the same.

The risks are still the same.

People are still the same.

Kids are still the same, and the instinct that makes male/female couples want them is as powerful as ever.

From your remarks, I'm pretty sure you're married. Would you want to get a divorce if gay marriage was the law of the land. Would gay marriage make you love your wife and kids any less?

D

[NathanR]

What benefits? What risks??

The problem is, that for men, since the implementation of No Fault Divorce, the benefits of marriage keep getting smaller and the risks keep getting larger. (e.g. women almost always keep the children)

One of the reasons people keep getting married, is the moral dimension. Gay "marriage" is an attack on that, and with that gone marriage will slowly fade away.

[DentsRun]

On this morning's Washington Journal, there was a Stamford education professor who went on a talking points sounding diatribe about 'No Child Left Behind' for crowding subjects like history and science out. What doesn't the brainiac understand about a kid not knowing basic reading keeping him/her from ever learning anything else?

What we're doing in Southern California is imported kids from rural Mexico's third world economy and trying to make them compete in a modern post-industrial society. They can't do it. All the native born middle class students leave the public schools as soon as they can. In order not to hurt the feelings of the kids who are left behind, the schools drop standards lower and lower till they shouldn't be called standards at all, since their function isn't to challenge the highest but make sure the lowest don't fail anything at all. No wonder America can't compete with China when it comes to manufacturing things circuit boards and computer parts, their workers know how to read the instructional manual. Ours are resentful that they ever should be required to read anything at all.

[daviddennis]

The benefits as I see them are the reaffirmation of a deep connection between two people, and a legal framework that enforces the support of children, therefore making them possible.

I don't see it as a concrete benefit to anyone that marriage can only be between a man and a woman; it changes neither the symbolism nor the legal bind.

What is it that I'm missing? How would gay marriage affect those benefits?

D

[Rabid Dog]

Once again, I'm in your court on this issue. About the only problem I have with the gay marriage issue is the flagrant disregard for the law - it is anarchy.

I don't care who or what someone marries - as long as I don't have to hear about it or see pictures of it on the front page day after day. Right now the Dems are defining an issue for the upcoming elections. Republicans should just blow them off and not respond. We need to stay focused on what's really important - homeland security, social security, public schools, etc.

[AnimalLover]

Re: Save Proposition 187

They have 155,000 signatures so far. (As of Feb 27) Apparently, this is only 1/4 of the signatures required by April 15th.

http://www.save187.com/

Would someone mind making this a direct link? I don't know how. Thanks!

[abigail2]

Thanks,Gee I didn't realize they had so few. Here's the link (I hope) http://www.save187.com/

[abigail2]

HTML Bootcamp (or Wow, how did they do that?) http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a1e6b7134bf.htm

HTML Bootcamp!

[NathanR]

It's not whether "gay marriage" will affect the benefits of "real" marriage, it is that marriage is becoming less and less useful for couples.

The "issues" which have affected marriage in the last few decades include the following:

AFDC which gives poor single women money for having lots of children. This is a disincentive for poor women to marry, if they can get more money from the state. In effect, the state becomes their "husband".

The "Pill" and Roe v. Wade. The Pill, in effect, decouples "sex" from "babies". Abortion, means that even when the pill fails, abortion becomes a fall back remedy.

Roe v. Wade had also meant that if a wife wants to kill her baby in her womb, her husband has no legal recource.

No fault divorce, has meant that a man's ex wife takes half his assets, half his income stream and all his children with no recource. This is a simplification, because some men get the children and the money as well, but this is the perception and is often true.

There are no longer any social repercussions for "living in sin". E.g. Landlords which refuse to rent to unmarried couples can be forced by the state to rent to them by nondescrimination laws.

What this means is that the benefits of marriage are becoming smaller and smaller and the risks are becoming larger. If the main reason to get married is that is the right thing to do, that reason is undercut by allowing homosexual "marriage" to be "blessed" by the state. When gays get the same piece of paper from the state that a man and a woman get, that degrades the value of that piece of paper, in many people's eyes.

This will not cause many divorces, but new marriages will become less and less over time, until we become like Europe.

[daviddennis]

All good points, but none of them would be in any way altered by gay marriage, and so they don't answer the question about why gay marriage should not be allowed.

I'm still waiting for a reason to care about the issue of gay marriage ...

D